Here is the definition of ijtehad as per our giant earlier mujtahids.
وذكر العلامة الحلي في كتاب تهذيب الأصول: الاجتهاد اصطلاحا: استفراغ
الوسع من الفقيه لتحصيل ظن بحكم شرعي انتهى كلامه (رحمه الله
الوسع من الفقيه لتحصيل ظن بحكم شرعي انتهى كلامه (رحمه الله
تهذيب الوصول: ٢٨٣
And Allama Hilli mentioned in the book Tahdhib ul usool: Ijtehad technically refers to the faqih (Islamic jurist) releasing his exhaustive effort to obtain an assumption about the shari'i ruling. (Source: Tahdhibul usool, Page 283)
معالم الدين وملاذ المجتهدين - ابن الشهيد الثاني - الصفحة ٢٣٨
Mu'alim al Din by ibn Shahid al Thani, Page 238
الاجتهاد في اللغة: تحمل الجهد وهو المشقة في أمر. يقال: اجتهد في حمل
الثقيل، ولا يقال ذلك في الحقير. وأما في الاصطلاح فهو استفراغ الفقيه وسعه في
تحصيل الظن بحكم شرعي
الثقيل، ولا يقال ذلك في الحقير. وأما في الاصطلاح فهو استفراغ الفقيه وسعه في
تحصيل الظن بحكم شرعي
The dictionary definition of ijtehad is: Bearing the effort, and it is the hardship in an issue. It (the term ijtehad) is used for exerting effort on the heavy/difficult issue, not for the insignificant/small issue. As for the technical definition, it is the release of exhaustive effort by the faqih to obtain an assumption about the shari'i ruling.
العلامة (٢) في النهاية: استفراغ الوسع في طلب الظن بشئ من الأحكام
الشرعية بحيث ينتفي اللوم عليه بسبب التقصير
الشرعية بحيث ينتفي اللوم عليه بسبب التقصير
٢) نهاية الأصول: ٤١١
Allama Hilli in al Nihaya: Releasing the exhaustive effort in obtaining the assumption for something among the rulings of shariah in a way that negates the blame upon him due to negligence. (Source: Niyatul usool, Page 411)
زبدة الأصول - الشيخ البهائي - الصفحة ١٦٠
Zubdatul Usool by Shaikh Bahai, Page 160
الحاجبي: استفراغ الفقيه الوسع في تحصيل الظن بحكم شرعي، ووافقه
العلامة في التهذيب
العلامة في التهذيب
(As per) Hajibi: The faqih releasing his exhaustive effort to obtain the assumption for a shari'i ruling, and Allama Hilli concurred with him (on the definition of ijtehad) in al tahdhib (translator's note: Allama Hilli's definition of ijtehad in his book tahdhibul usool has already been cited above).
Now let us have a look at the sunni definition of ijtehad:
التلويح للعلامة التفتازاني (شرح التوضيح لصدر الشريعة من كتب الحنفية
Al Talwih (a commentary of al Taudih lisadr al shari'a, a Hanafi text) by Allama Taftazani
وهو في اللغة تحمل الجهد
والمشقة. وفي الاصطلاح: استفراغ الفقيه الوسع ليحصل له ظن بحكم شرعي، وهذا
هو المراد بقولهم: " بذل المجهود لنيل المقصود " ومعنى: " استفراغ الوسع " بذل تمام
الطاقة بحيث يحس من نفسه العجز عن المزيد عليه
والمشقة. وفي الاصطلاح: استفراغ الفقيه الوسع ليحصل له ظن بحكم شرعي، وهذا
هو المراد بقولهم: " بذل المجهود لنيل المقصود " ومعنى: " استفراغ الوسع " بذل تمام
الطاقة بحيث يحس من نفسه العجز عن المزيد عليه
And its dictionary definition is bearing exertion of effort and hardship. And its technical definition is, the faqih releasing his exhaustive effort for obtaining through it an assumption for a shari'i ruling. And the implied meaning of their statement is "The effort bearer employing effort to obtain what is desired/required" and the meaning of "releasing exhaustive effort" is exerting all the power/resources in a way that he feels within himself helplessness to add more upon it (i.e. the exhaustive effort he already exerted).
وفي إحكام الآمدي من كتب الشافعية: الاجتهاد في اصطلاح الأصوليين
مخصوص باستفراغ الوسع في طلب الظن بشيء من الأحكام الشرعية على وجه
يحس من النفس العجز عن المزيد عليه
مخصوص باستفراغ الوسع في طلب الظن بشيء من الأحكام الشرعية على وجه
يحس من النفس العجز عن المزيد عليه
And in Ahkam al Amidi, one of the shaf'i books: The ijtehad as per the definition of the experts of usool (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) is associated with releasing of the exhaustive effort in obtaining the assumption for something among the rulings of shariah, up to the point that he feels within himself helplessness from adding more upon it (i.e. to the exhaustive effort he already exerted).
Translator's note: As can be seen from the definitions cited above, among shias as well as sunnis, the definition of ijtehad is the same and it involves speculation because as the definitions show, ijtehad involves exerting effort to arrive at an assumption regarding Islamic rulings. In fact, ijtehad had started much earlier among the sunnis because ijtehad had not obtained legitimacy within the classical shia scholars. So basically, the latter shia scholars just copied the sunni definition of ijtehad and blatantly followed in their footsteps in practicing it.
Since ijtehad involved obtaining an assumption regarding Islamic rulings, what if the assumption derived by the mujtahid is wrong? Would that be a sin? Let us see what Muhaqqiq Hilli says:
وذكر الإمام المحقق قدوة المقدسين المحقق الحلي (قدس سره) في مختصره في الأصول:
أما ما يفتقر إلى اجتهاد ونظر، فإنه يجب على المجتهد استفراغ الوسع فيه فإن أخطأ
لم يكن مأثوما
أما ما يفتقر إلى اجتهاد ونظر، فإنه يجب على المجتهد استفراغ الوسع فيه فإن أخطأ
لم يكن مأثوما
معارج الأصول: ١٨٠ - ١٨١
And Muhaqqiq al Hilli mentioned in his Mukhtasar fil usool: As for what is in need of ijtehad and consideration, so indeed it is obligatory on the mujtahid to release the exhaustive effort on it. Then if he errs he would not be a sinner. (source: Mu'arij al Usool, Page 180-181)
Translator's note: As can be seen from Muhaqqiq Hilli's comment, just like the sunnis exonerate certain companions such as Muawiyah from his sins such as waging war against the just Imam, Imam Ali (as) by deeming it an error of ijtehad which does not render one a sinner, similarly the shia mujtahids also exonerate the mujtahids of their sins by declaring that error in ijtehad does not make the mujtahid a sinner.
Salam aleikum akhi
ReplyDeleteWhen the definition of Ijtihad by classical scholars and their later batch is presented to todays defenders of staunch Usuli thinking, they say that the very definition of "Ijtihad" underwent a change, meaning that Ijtihad doesnt have the same definition to todays people or scholars as it was before?
My question: How do they proove that? And what is the answer to it?
Wasalam
Wa'laykummus salam brother,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying, the "change of ijtehad's definition" card used by usulis. I myself used to be a very staunch usuli about 1.5 or so years ago.
Anyhow, generally their claim is that the complete change in definition occurred during Allama Hilli's time, as done by him himself. This is what Ayt. Mutahhari had claimed, you can see the links below:
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=ijtihad-legislation.htm
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/default.asp?url=ijtihad.htm
So first things first, Allama Hilli was not among the classical scholars (or their last batch, that refers to people up to Tusi or those who came just after him). He was among the mutakhireen (latter scholars). People like Muhaqqiq Hilli, Allama Hilli etc are sometimes referred to as mutaqadami mutakhireen (i.e. earlier batch of latter scholars). Now as can be seen in this post, I've posted the definitions only from the giant latter scholars (who favored ijtehad and viewed it in very good light) themselves, and one can now see for himself what these definitions are, their being exact same as aami (non shias/sunnis) ijtehad definition, and the obvious flaws in the methodology from a shi'i perspective. So in other words, these are the very definitions that we have AFTER the so called change, right from the mouth of their inventors and biggest proponents.
As for the classical scholars, as far as the muhaditheen (such as Shaikh Kulaini, ibn al Walid, Shaikh Saduq etc) are concerned, they didn't even use the term ijtehad. Scholars like Kulaini just used the term qiyas since in our ahadith and according to early imamis, ijtehad was synonymous to qiyas. As for their latter batch such as Tusi, he does explicitly mention ijtehad but rejects it. I myself was aware of the usuli tactic of citing the "change in definition" argument, so regardless of the fact that the Imams never mentioned any "alternate" form of ijtehad in the first place, for the sake of argument I listed the definitions from the latter scholars themselves which came after the so called change, instead of only citing views of classical scholars. Also, why would the great akhbari scholars such as Shaikh Hurr al Amili (who's respected very highly by all sane usulis as well), who was a latter scholar himself, criticise ijtehad (as being practiced by the latter scholars, after the so called change of definition) so strongly? Was he also an "internet scholar" with a mission against mujtahids, and was unable to comprehend the newfound definition of ijtehad?
Yes, the usuli laymen would often reject the claim that mujtahids apply rationalizations and would argue that ijtehad simply refers to applying the principles of jurisprudence as defined in ahadith themselves (such as everything thing being tahir/pure unless proven to be najis), but that is just wishful thinking, in fact this is actually the methodology of staunch akhbaris (who strictly follow the principles of jurisprudence mentioned in ahadith themselves). So generally speaking, usuli laymen tend to subconsciously support the akhbari methodology and despise the real usuli methodology (which they tend to be unaware of), while being under the misconception that ijtehad refers to the akhbari methodology and akhbari methodology is composed of idiocy followed by ignoramuses.
Lastly, anyone can pickup a simple fiqh book of any marja, its basic usuli fiqh 101 that their source of law includes rationalisation and ijma (of mujtahids) as independent sources of law, and anyone who goes their books would often pickup rulings which aren't in any way supported by ahadith, but only via rationalisations and ijma (such as issue of giving khums to maraji)
Wassalam
The only Ijma acceptable in shia fiqh is the ijma of the early scholars and peoples, not todays or later scholars. Rationalisation is not acceptable, as it does not lead to certainty, so qiyas and inductive reasoning are not used, but deductive (going from the general to the specific) is used.
DeleteThis is all from my understanding of shia fiqh.
Salam aleikum
ReplyDeleteWonderful answer indeed, thanks brother.
Which of the later of ealierst scholars rejects ijtihad? You mentioned Sheikh Tusi? Are there any others who mention it and reject it?
Wasalam
Salam Brother,
ReplyDeleteCould you also cite the definitions of classical scholars for Ijtihad? I have read one from Sheikh Tusi on your blog. What about other scholars before or shortly after him?
@Anonymous: Walaykummus salam,
ReplyDeleteSyed Radi (author of Nahjul Balagha) said in the Idafah (addendum to Shaikh Mufid's book) to Awail al Maqalat:
- القول في الاجتهاد والقياس
أقول: إن الاجتهاد والقياس في الحوادث لا يسوغان للمجتهد ولا للقائس، وإن كل حادثة ترد فعليها نص من الصادقين - عليهم السلام - يحكم به فيها ولا يتعدى إلى غيرها، بذلك جاءت الأخبار الصحيحة والآثار الواضحة عنهم - صلوات الله عليهم - وهذا مذهب الإمامية خاصة، ويخالف فيه جمهور المتكلمين وفقهاء الأمصار
On ijtehad and qiyas: Both are not permissible, for every issue there is a hadith available from the Imams (as), so one should rule by them (ahadith) instead of referring to anything else. These are the clear orders given in the authentic ahadith of the Imams(as), and this is the path of the imami shias while majority of the scholars (of other sects) say otherwise.
Wassalam
Salam. Indeed it WAS used by 14 Ma'soumins (as, AND condemned
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/hadith/wasael-27/
6 ـ باب عدم جواز القضاء والحكم ، بالرأي ، والاجتهاد ،
والمقاييس ، ونحوها من الاستنباطات الظنية في نفس الاحكام الشرعية (*).